Search DanilowEssays.com:

Conscience (March 24th, 2013)

 

In the early 1900's President Theodore Roosevelt suggested that foreign policy objectives might be met by those who "speak softly and carry a big stick". The phrase is sometimes repeated as "walk softly but carry a big stick". Roughly 100 years later Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld experientially showed the rest of the world that foreign policy architects armed with enormous bludgeons can speak and walk most anyway they please. Lying about the need for war was bad enough but militarizing an entire nation and arrogantly displaying total disregard for international law was anathema to observant rights advocates everywhere. Astoundingly evil global human rights violations continue without noticeable opposition inside the oppressing "Christian" nation. No wonder so much of the planet deplores American government, values, and policies. Most contemporary allies—the best that foreign aid tax monies can buy—appear to be conjoined at the head through the cohesive power of public plunder.

Holding near monopoly on the preferred means of large scale violence the "land of the free" says kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention, and murder of suspected enemies can be legally practiced unilaterally anywhere on earth without declarations of war or approval of any affected sovereign governments. These tyrannical acts likely will continue with impunity until thwarted by moral conscience alerted through transparency. Consequently involuntary transparency promoted by the likes of Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, Anonymous, and Julian Assange is becoming ever more crucial to contemporary human justness.

Military brass and civilian devotee leaders and associates would hide all details of war from the general public simply because the details of war are abomination to moral conscience. The great preponderance of classified information exists primarily to avoid embarrassments associated with human rights violations, war crimes, or insightful spins of newsworthy events. The strategy is not new, fortunately denigrated during the Vietnam era, sadly rejuvenated by the elder Bush administration, nurtured since and blossoming anew. National security my ass, no sane earthling can view " Collateral Murder" with approval despite its sanction as consistent with official rules of engagement—incidentally bringing another point to mind: While it is easy to understand how "American heroes" can be suckered into their first contract for military service of aggression it is very difficult to grasp why any astute individual might desire or endure seconds.

American foreign policy typically is awash in self-serving barbarism and aggression. Perhaps history will show that serving US combat interests at least since WWII is no more a palatable source of pride than serving the Wehrmacht during the Nazi regime. And back then London's fear of V-2 rockets was substantial but probably far less than the terror of uncertainty felt in Middle Eastern areas constantly targeted by made-in-America equal opportunity killing machines which dispense unthinking sudden death without regard to race, creed, color, age, gender, national origin, or confirmed guilt—and all at the discretion of suspicious butchers located hundreds or thousands of miles away

It seems truly disgusting that the world's wealthiest nation does not elicit public trust, or support the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or honor international law, or profess humanitarian goals, or have notable capacity for transparency. Protecting circles of great wealth is perennially accomplished at the expense of virtue. Hague proceedings holding top American officials accountable for war crime activities might produce rays of hope. For now the production, acquisition, and skewed distribution of wealth continues without regard for Gitmo, human rights, international law, or piety.

Valid CSS!